BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

114 results for “reassessment”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai364Delhi317Bangalore138Chennai135Hyderabad114Jaipur113Kolkata72Rajkot62Patna48Ahmedabad48Chandigarh45Guwahati43Amritsar42Pune37Visakhapatnam31Surat27Indore25Raipur22Jodhpur16Agra15Nagpur14Ranchi14Lucknow13Panaji6Cuttack4Allahabad2Dehradun2

Key Topics

Section 148127Section 153C114Addition to Income94Section 13283Section 143(3)73Search & Seizure72Section 14746Section 6942Section 139(1)40

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 15/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6

Section 6838
Limitation/Time-bar33
Cash Deposit24

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 52/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 14/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 26/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 42/HYD/2021[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 51/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 27/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 28/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 29/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 16/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 40/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 41/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 43/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 50/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 53/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 30/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 17/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 18/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

133A was carried out in the case of the appellant on 22.02.2016 and the appellant had disclosed an additional income of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- for the year under consideration. The appellant, there after filed a revised return u/s. 139(5) on 21.12.2016 at an income of Rs. 9,70,04,260/- and claiming a deduction u/ s. 80IA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

133A was carried out in the case of the appellant on 22.02.2016 and the appellant had disclosed an additional income of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- for the year under consideration. The appellant, there after filed a revised return u/s. 139(5) on 21.12.2016 at an income of Rs. 9,70,04,260/- and claiming a deduction u/ s. 80IA